Mental flatliner wrote:Examples of evidence on my shelves:
--Egyptian records record Solomon's wealth
--Abraham's name in Egyptian records
--7 different sources verifying the flood was an historic event
--Evidence from Egyptian sources that Moses was educated in Thebes
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Who do you think you're talking to?
OK, let's see any one of these things. I don't care which one. You pick.
Stephan Huller wrote:Who wants to put money on Mentalflatliner = J P Holding?
I think he's too reckless to be Holding, not insulting enough and not well enough ensconsed behind a cushion of obfuscatory references to other apologists. He might be a Holding disciple, though.
Mental flatliner wrote:Examples of evidence on my shelves:
--Egyptian records record Solomon's wealth
--Abraham's name in Egyptian records
--7 different sources verifying the flood was an historic event
--Evidence from Egyptian sources that Moses was educated in Thebes
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Who do you think you're talking to?
OK, let's see any one of these things. I don't care which one. You pick.
Oh, no. Don't settle for THAT list. Let's make this interesting:
--Abraham spoke and wrote in Akkadian cuneiform
--Bible verses are quoted in the Assyrian Annals
--The Genesis story of creation proliferated directly to Memphis and the Indus valley and are indirectly quoted in both bodies of literature
--Genesis 2-3 was discovered to have influenced a Sumerian tablet dating to 2100 BC (making Genesis older and at that time authoritative)
--The Torah tracked the progress of the Hyksos invasion of Egypt (how's THAT for an anachronism?)
If you're going to eagerly snap up the low hanging fruit, please at least allow me to show you another side of the tree!
Mental flatliner wrote:
The gospel writers (and all other historical sources, for that matter) are not subject to YOUR standards of authenticity.
Agree, but all have to apply our own standards anyway. Human nature.
The purpose of the gospels was for eye-witnesses to relate what they saw
Who says? Maybe it was to relate what they heard from others as stories developed over several generations. Some here think maybe it was to tell a grand story based on scriptures..You also assume that the 'gospels' were originally what they are now. What if they were very different? Much shorter? I already mentioned Papias whose comments indicate that Mark and Matthew wrote things different than our current gospels...so what happened? What was in the originals?
Obviously the birth stories weren't 'seen'. SO, where did those come from? Why are the two different stories? Why are the resurrection accounts virtually incompatible between Luke and Matthew? And their genealogies...Too much of a problem there for me to be convinced that history was accurately recorded.
Quite a few unanswered questions here...so many that I'm not so sure we can be confident about the ORIGINAL purposes.
Mental flatliner wrote:Oh, no. Don't settle for THAT list. Let's make this interesting:
--Abraham spoke and wrote in Akkadian cuneiform
--Bible verses are quoted in the Assyrian Annals
--The Genesis story of creation proliferated directly to Memphis and the Indus valley and are indirectly quoted in both bodies of literature
--Genesis 2-3 was discovered to have influenced a Sumerian tablet dating to 2100 BC (making Genesis older and at that time authoritative)
--The Torah tracked the progress of the Hyksos invasion of Egypt (how's THAT for an anachronism?)
If you're going to eagerly snap up the low hanging fruit, please at least allow me to show you another side of the tree!
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. You're killing me. Just one half-baked assertion after another without a source in sight.
Genesis influenced the Sumerian myths? The Sumerian myths, including the Sumerian flood myth, are over a thousand years older than Genesis.
The Bible contains material that it plundered fro earlier Ugaritic texts. They are older. Time moves in a linear fashion. You are appealing to earlier texts which were written before the Hebrew language even existed and saying they are influenced by Hebrew texts.
The Torah never mentions the Hyksos or the Hyksos invasion, though it is certainly possible that the Joseph and Moses narratives are based on garbled, reinvented variations of stories about the Hyksos invasion and expulsion, but the Hyksos were not Israelites and there was no Moses or Exodus.
Diogenes the Cynic wrote:Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. You're killing me.
Not my intent.
I'll kill you after I've toyed with you.
Here's a few more:
--Abraham and Jacob obeyed the laws of Hamurrabi (not laws of periods prior or after) dating their stories to the patriarchal period
--The biographies of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph imitate 18th century BC Egyptian biographical styles (not styles of the middle kingdom or later)
--The appearance of the Philistines for the first time in the Bible happens within a few years of the first time the name appears in Egyptian records
--Judges has a phrase "there was no judge in Israel, and every man did what was right in his own eyes", a phrase common in Egypt at the same time (not before or after)
This is how you demonstrate the historical accuracy of the Bible.
